EA: FIFA 11 coming to PC

FIFA 11 has been announced for PCs and is set for an October release, says a release from the EA Sports label - and it'll apparently have the same quality of graphics and gameplay as the console versions.

Writing on his official blog, EA Sports boss Peter Moore explained that FIFA 11 on the PC would offer PC games a console-level experience. Gee, thanks.

"You'll now be able to have the award-winning gameplay and graphics that were once only for consoles, optimised for your home computer," wrote Moore.

"FIFA PC users have been requesting this for some time now, and although it took two years to develop, we are finally able to deliver the next-gen game experience on PC."

EA Sports has set the release date for FIFA 11 as October 1st in Europe - a date which will apply to all versions.

Key features for FIFA 11 include a new 'Creation Centre', where players can design their own players from scratch and share them through the online network.

Good if you have... a.. HTPC? I never saw the hype in sports games that EA pumps out every year. Its befuddles me. Fifa, Madden, Rugby, NHL, I think countries are targetted with their national sport which is clever in money making.

The crap FIFA games on the pc over the last few years have been the only games that keep me buying consoles, so if FIFA 2011 pc version is as good as FIFA 2011 console version maybe I won't need my console any more and will be a big step up for the FIFA fans who prefer pc gaming (like myself).

Have any of you guys bitching about dumbing down the PC version any idea what the differences between Fifa on PC v console actually are?

Fifa on PC hasn't changed since 07, technically. Graphics & [more importantly] gameplay on consoles are vastly superior to the PC version and have been for years. Ever since the introduction of Fifa on next-gen consoles such [360 & PS3] the PC community has been crying out to get the same graphics & gameplay for PC but EA always used the lame excuse about PCs not being multi-threaded enough.

This will be a huge step forward for Fifa on PC actually. So stop moaning about things you don't care enough about to even try to understand.

Originally Posted by perplekks45Have any of you guys bitching about dumbing down the PC version any idea what the differences between Fifa on PC v console actually are?

Fifa on PC hasn't changed since 07, technically. Graphics & [more importantly] gameplay on consoles are vastly superior to the PC version and have been for years. Ever since the introduction of Fifa on next-gen consoles such [360 & PS3] the PC community has been crying out to get the same graphics & gameplay for PC but EA always used the lame excuse about PCs not being multi-threaded enough.

This will be a huge step forward for Fifa on PC actually. So stop moaning about things you don't care enough about to even try to understand.

[/rant]

I think it is more irony than actual bitching.

The quotes are just funny "Now you can get the newest generation console performance, from your PC!" since most of us have owed PCs with significantly higher performing hardware than current consoles for years.

We usually associate a console game ported to PC as being missed potential, as current gaming PCs can do a lot more than current consoles. In this case, as pointed out by you and several other people, the old PC version of this game was so bad that a console port is actually an improvement, which is the opposite of what we're used to.

Their secretary or PR person who wrote that blog post probably didn't know about the hardware comparisons, and only knew that they were upgrading the PC version to being as good as the console version. To us, it's ridiculous because we are used to PC versions being better than console versions, and PC-exclusive games having much better graphics than console-to-PC ports.

Im a PC gamer, PC snobs, graphics on console are hardly shiit, in fact, God of War 3, Uncharted 2, only a couple PC games actually match those (One is 2 + years old). Sports games on console look fine. I love my PC, but very few games today are designed to use the latest PC hardware.

If only I can get the amazing resolution of my sega on my 480gtx ahahahahahh. Where will i get the fpos for this level of computation!

Thank you for your hard work in getting those amazing console grafix on my crappy computer. I would normally need to wait 500 years for that level of technology of which would be better than a console...

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzIm a PC gamer, PC snobs, graphics on console are hardly shiit, in fact, God of War 3, Uncharted 2, only a couple PC games actually match those (One is 2 + years old). Sports games on console look fine. I love my PC, but very few games today are designed to use the latest PC hardware.

Nice colours in those games but most PC games look better as they have less aliasing, better textures and higher rendering resolution.

And to all those with the smart arse comments this announcement is a good thing since FIFA 10 on PC is a PS2 port with core gameplay mostly unchanged since FIFA 07. Using the 360/PS3 base for the PC version will improve it greatly.

Originally Posted by erratum1Console graphics on your home computer, wow, aren't we the lucky ones.

Its not really about the graphics though, its the PC getting the same game and physics engine as the consoles, Yes its late and i hate EA taking this amount of time to do it, but at least itts finally coming.

Good that the PC version of FIFA is finally getting a long-awaited visual makeover because it was quite embarassing seeing the 360 and PS3 version trounce it every year. The previous versions were little more than spruced up PS2 ports.

Originally Posted by Yoy0YOGood if you have... a.. HTPC? I never saw the hype in sports games that EA pumps out every year. Its befuddles me. Fifa, Madden, Rugby, NHL, I think countries are targetted with their national sport which is clever in money making.

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzIm a PC gamer, PC snobs, graphics on console are hardly shiit, in fact, God of War 3, Uncharted 2, only a couple PC games actually match those (One is 2 + years old). Sports games on console look fine. I love my PC, but very few games today are designed to use the latest PC hardware.

Nice colours in those games but most PC games look better as they have less aliasing, better textures and higher rendering resolution.

And to all those with the smart arse comments this announcement is a good thing since FIFA 10 on PC is a PS2 port with core gameplay mostly unchanged since FIFA 07. Using the 360/PS3 base for the PC version will improve it greatly.

Nope, i have a core i7, there are about 2-3 games that have as nice textures, graphics as GOW3 and Uncharted 2, even heavry rain looks outstanding. This Console graphics sucks is bs, sure not as nice as a high end PC but not far off considering the age of the hardware. no one utilizes PC anymore.

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzNope, i have a core i7, there are about 2-3 games that have as nice textures, graphics as GOW3 and Uncharted 2, even heavry rain looks outstanding. This Console graphics sucks is bs, sure not as nice as a high end PC but not far off considering the age of the hardware. no one utilizes PC anymore.

That bit aside, you'll notice that, as said before, console games are heavily aliased compared to PC games. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe either the PS3 or 360 is even capable of anti-aliasing. For a game like Assassin's Creed you'll notice the difference instantly. I've got the first on PC and force AA, and the second on PS3. It's almost painful to see all those jagged edges as I climb along buildings.

The beauty of God of War 3 is that it has very linear gameplay. The developers can heavily control just what the player sees and what needs to be rendered. That's not even a console vs. PC thing, look at the Assassin's Creed that I mentioned earlier: player has free roam, more potential for things to need being rendered, all objects must have high quality textures in case the player comes close. It does not look as pretty. GoW3 knows everywhere you can go and as such only has to worry about a relatively small number of polygons and textures to keep at high quality. And it really does create a beautiful game, I love it, but it does not make a console's rendering capability better than the PC. If it was ported to PC it would look exactly the same, and even better if someone such as myself forced anti-aliasing and anistropic filtering.

I'd also like to point out Bad Company 2, it's a very pretty multi-platform game. Unfortunately for consoles, it runs on what the PC has classed as "Low" settings.

Anywho! Their PR person must not have been thinking what that quote would look like to non-FIFA fans :)

To be honest, football games are one of the areas where console controllers tend to excel over keyboard and mouse combos; not many PC gamers tend to keep a traditional controller pad around and I find FIFA's pretty much a stalwart in the 'friends on the sofa in the evening' area anyway.

Originally Posted by <A88&gtTo be honest, football games are one of the areas where console controllers tend to excel over keyboard and mouse combos; not many PC gamers tend to keep a traditional controller pad around

WTF? I guess you never heard of a Logitech Wireless Rumble Pad 2 or using a 360 or PS3 controller on your PC. I love my KB/M but some games are just better using a controller like SPORTS.

WOW I can get console quality graphics on my PC without taking out my XFX HD 4890 crossfire set up? Console quality graphics on my PC without having to turn AA and AF off, use low settings, and using 800 X 600 resolution?
WOW I can get console quality graphics on my PC without using an Console Emulator?

Thanks EA your a genius and I can't wait to Pirate I mean Purchase this non use of my PC's power of a game.

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzNope, i have a core i7, there are about 2-3 games that have as nice textures, graphics as GOW3 and Uncharted 2, even heavry rain looks outstanding. This Console graphics sucks is bs, sure not as nice as a high end PC but not far off considering the age of the hardware. no one utilizes PC anymore.

A core i7? I think I know why you don't see the advantage PC's have. It's because you don't have a graphics card.

Seriously though console graphics are definitely passable but PC graphics have the edge and most console ports look better on PC. Unfortunately a ton of these ports are Unreal Engine 3 games which for some reason is used to give everything a totally unrealistic shine.

Again, graphics are better, but how much better? not much considering how far beyond Pc hardware Is. I see Pc gamers are still in denial, fact is hardware doesn't matter as very few devs use the hardware, almost all games are console ports. Its nothing regarding the hardware, NO DEVS are Utilizing the PC tech.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.I totally agree with "Mastorofpuppetz" as developers are lazy and the only people utilizing the power of the PC are modders (ACE MOD 2 or Stalker Complete for example).

PC gamers just have to be patient and wait for Valve to get things moving (as usual Valve to the rescue).

I hate when people say that the Developers are Lazy.

it has nothing to do with the developers its the publishers decision.

i would say 90% of developers would love to work on the Latest technology creating state of the art gameplay and graphics but the publisher who funds the projects say
'here have X amount thats just enough to role out the same graphics and gameplay with a modified UI new soundtrack and upto date squads'

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzAgain, graphics are better, but how much better? not much considering how far beyond Pc hardware Is. I see Pc gamers are still in denial, fact is hardware doesn't matter as very few devs use the hardware, almost all games are console ports. Its nothing regarding the hardware, NO DEVS are Utilizing the PC tech.

Its not as simple as that by a long way, most games are made for consoles first simply because of the huge amounts of money that can be recouped through sales, Although im mainly a PC gamer, If you were a game dev and wanted to make a living from it you'd be mad not to look at the console crowd.

You cant seriously believe that if the PC was the sole gaming medium that the graphics would be as they currently are?

The way i look at gaming now is mainly through indie/small dev studios. But even with the big named PC releases at least i can modify the games either myself or through countless fan mods that are available. Console versions are limited to how the ship or whatever gets added officially.

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzNope, i have a core i7, there are about 2-3 games that have as nice textures, graphics as GOW3 and Uncharted 2, even heavry rain looks outstanding. This Console graphics sucks is bs, sure not as nice as a high end PC but not far off considering the age of the hardware. no one utilizes PC anymore.

That bit aside, you'll notice that, as said before, console games are heavily aliased compared to PC games. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe either the PS3 or 360 is even capable of anti-aliasing. For a game like Assassin's Creed you'll notice the difference instantly. I've got the first on PC and force AA, and the second on PS3. It's almost painful to see all those jagged edges as I climb along buildings.

The beauty of God of War 3 is that it has very linear gameplay. The developers can heavily control just what the player sees and what needs to be rendered. That's not even a console vs. PC thing, look at the Assassin's Creed that I mentioned earlier: player has free roam, more potential for things to need being rendered, all objects must have high quality textures in case the player comes close. It does not look as pretty. GoW3 knows everywhere you can go and as such only has to worry about a relatively small number of polygons and textures to keep at high quality. And it really does create a beautiful game, I love it, but it does not make a console's rendering capability better than the PC. If it was ported to PC it would look exactly the same, and even better if someone such as myself forced anti-aliasing and anistropic filtering.

I'd also like to point out Bad Company 2, it's a very pretty multi-platform game. Unfortunately for consoles, it runs on what the PC has classed as "Low" settings.

Anywho! Their PR person must not have been thinking what that quote would look like to non-FIFA fans :)

U make it sound like only linear games ar \eon console, Red Dead redemption looks amazing and thats as good as an open world game there is, and it looks amazing.

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzAgain, graphics are better, but how much better? not much considering how far beyond Pc hardware Is. I see Pc gamers are still in denial, fact is hardware doesn't matter as very few devs use the hardware, almost all games are console ports. Its nothing regarding the hardware, NO DEVS are Utilizing the PC tech.

Its not as simple as that by a long way, most games are made for consoles first simply because of the huge amounts of money that can be recouped through sales, Although im mainly a PC gamer, If you were a game dev and wanted to make a living from it you'd be mad not to look at the console crowd.

You cant seriously believe that if the PC was the sole gaming medium that the graphics would be as they currently are?

The way i look at gaming now is mainly through indie/small dev studios. But even with the big named PC releases at least i can modify the games either myself or through countless fan mods that are available. Console versions are limited to how the ship or whatever gets added officially.

Not sure what your going on with, I never argued any of your points, the issue is barly anyone is even trying to use PC tech. We all know IF a dev used the PC first and designed a game with PC in mind the graphics are amazing, but, how many of those games are around?

I never once said anything, what you are saying is a totally different thing. I agree, but fact is there is very few games that are utilizing the PC. It hurts me to say this as I have always been first and foremost a PC gamer.

As someone who has actually played FIFA 10 on both PC and Xbox 360, with gamepads on both, I can safely say that FIFA 10 on PC is shocking. The graphics are low, the controls are poor, the referee decisions are crap.

Whilst it might seem ironic to you that EA is only now updating their engine for PC, remember that late is better than never. PCs are certainly a much much much smaller audience than consoles for sports games such as FIFA 10, in no part helped by substandard games on PC over the years (substandard in this case being a game that would be crap on consoles as well) and unsuitable controls in the mouse and keyboard (personally I play Fifa with an x360 gamepad).

Encouraging EA in this case sounds like a good idea. No matter how ironic, if the game is a commercial success (especially in emerging countries such as Brazil and Mexico) it will encourage EA to produce less console ports. Don't let a seemingly ironic comment irritate you, EA is not the same EA of old. EA are starting to put more effort into the PC as a platform, and that can be a positive thing.

I could tell you some other good things that EA are doing with the modding community, which may yield an excellent game, but my friend could get in trouble for it.

Originally Posted by CowBlazedYea because EA admitting they purposefully released crap sports games on the PC up until now makes me want to go out and buy this one.

It makes me want to buy them. To me, it makes me think they've turned over a new leaf. For one year at least, I want to trust them, and I'll see where it goes from there.

I'm pretty sure you never bought any FIFA games in the last two years, so I don't think you are the target audience, really. I'd suspect that the people who EA are trying to sell to are the people who used to buy FIFA and now either buy console or Pro Evo. You likely have no interest in football, and merely feel robbed as a PC gamer. Meanwhile, I, and I assume many other people who enjoy football games think that any progress is good progress. Personally, I'll probably buy this game, since it will help show EA that they should put the time and effort into the PC platform instead of focusing all their resources on consoles.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.I totally agree with "Mastorofpuppetz" as developers are lazy and the only people utilizing the power of the PC are modders (ACE MOD 2 or Stalker Complete for example).

PC gamers just have to be patient and wait for Valve to get things moving (as usual Valve to the rescue).

I hate when people say that the Developers are Lazy.

it has nothing to do with the developers its the publishers decision.

i would say 90% of developers would love to work on the Latest technology creating state of the art gameplay and graphics but the publisher who funds the projects say
'here have X amount thats just enough to role out the same graphics and gameplay with a modified UI new soundtrack and upto date squads'

Sorry buddy but LAZY Developers is the proper term because if they were not LAZY they would convince the publisher that more effort is needed to set this game apart from all the other crap that is out or quit and go work for a development team that is allowed to be innovative like Valve for example.

Most developers don't even make the engine that their games run on they just buy a copy of the unreal engine 1 2 3 or 4 then proceed to make a crap game. 360 PS3 or PC most developers don't push the hardware to the limits or even learn new programming techniques for their game and hardware.

LAZY LAZY LAZY Developers. There are PC game modders out there that are better than these company clowns.

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzIm a PC gamer, PC snobs, graphics on console are hardly shiit, in fact, God of War 3, Uncharted 2, only a couple PC games actually match those (One is 2 + years old). Sports games on console look fine. I love my PC, but very few games today are designed to use the latest PC hardware.

Nice colours in those games but most PC games look better as they have less aliasing, better textures and higher rendering resolution.

And to all those with the smart arse comments this announcement is a good thing since FIFA 10 on PC is a PS2 port with core gameplay mostly unchanged since FIFA 07. Using the 360/PS3 base for the PC version will improve it greatly.

Nope, i have a core i7, there are about 2-3 games that have as nice textures, graphics as GOW3 and Uncharted 2, even heavry rain looks outstanding. This Console graphics sucks is bs, sure not as nice as a high end PC but not far off considering the age of the hardware. no one utilizes PC anymore.

Nevermind the fact that the average PC GPU is probably going to be drawing over twice as many pixels as the console chip, that is the only reason that consoles can keep up with PC's. Whenever games get better looking they drop back the res to get it playable and then just upscale, if the consoles were forced to use native 1080 the graphics would be more like FarCry than Crysis.

I also find it laughable that people make it sound like higher a resolutoin makes a huge diff in graphics. I hook up my PC to my 1080p samsung and the graphics dont look any better then on my older monitors on lower resolutions, maybe slightly at best.

Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetzI also find it laughable that people make it sound like higher a resolutoin makes a huge diff in graphics. I hook up my PC to my 1080p samsung and the graphics dont look any better then on my older monitors on lower resolutions, maybe slightly at best.

That might be true to some extend.

But now change the resolution back to what it was when you were using your old screens, or even lower while using your new screen. The graphics do seem worse, don't they?

On high resolution displays which are very common these days the ridiculously low resolution of most console games looks just awful.

But now change the resolution back to what it was when you were using your old screens, or even lower while using your new screen. The graphics do seem worse, don't they?

On high resolution displays which are very common these days the ridiculously low resolution of most console games looks just awful.

Not entirely true. Whilst putting a 720p feed into a 1080p monitor will usually yield crap results, you'll get much better results if the device (such as an Xbox 360) can handle upscaling properly. Nevertheless, the result will still be inferior to a properly rendered image, with more jaggies etc.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.Sorry buddy but LAZY Developers is the proper term because if they were not LAZY they would convince the publisher that more effort is needed to set this game apart from all the other crap that is out or quit and go work for a development team that is allowed to be innovative like Valve for example.

Most developers don't even make the engine that their games run on they just buy a copy of the unreal engine 1 2 3 or 4 then proceed to make a crap game. 360 PS3 or PC most developers don't push the hardware to the limits or even learn new programming techniques for their game and hardware.

LAZY LAZY LAZY Developers. There are PC game modders out there that are better than these company clowns.

That's really unfair. Unless you're a large and well-regarded developer that is lucky enough to get a partnership deal with a publisher (most aren't), then you're really at the mercy of the publisher's demands. Good luck convincing them to do anything they don't want to (I should know, I work for one - although my position is unrelated to games).

Your opinion that developers, who aren't allowed to properly optimise their games, should quit is both laughable and selfish. Jobs in game development were already incredibly hard to come by even before the global recession, now they're almost non-existent.

Yes it would be great if all developers could be like Valve, but unfortunately companies with that much freedom are few and far between and they can't hire everybody. Also, when was the last time Valve "utilized the power of the pc"? Aren't they still using the dated Source engine for all of their games? Conceptually their games are great, but don't pretend they're visual masterpieces.

If the publisher of a multi-platform title requests a PC version from the developers, they are given time and budgetary constraints. If the port they are able to produce isn't very good, well, we have professional reviewers (like Bit-tech) who allow us to then make an informed buying decision.

Also, you should be grateful for third party engines like UE3, as they allow games (which wouldn't exist otherwise) to be ported very quickly and cheaply. Would you rather have some good and some bad UE3 games, or none at all?

Hopefully this post will help you understand the type of 'rock and a hard place' situation developers are currently in.

Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.Sorry buddy but LAZY Developers is the proper term because if they were not LAZY they would convince the publisher that more effort is needed to set this game apart from all the other crap that is out or quit and go work for a development team that is allowed to be innovative like Valve for example.

Most developers don't even make the engine that their games run on they just buy a copy of the unreal engine 1 2 3 or 4 then proceed to make a crap game. 360 PS3 or PC most developers don't push the hardware to the limits or even learn new programming techniques for their game and hardware.

LAZY LAZY LAZY Developers. There are PC game modders out there that are better than these company clowns.

How much do you know about game development? I'd imagine none.

Claiming that game developers are lazy because they've bought engines off others is massively stupid.

Most of the top selling games were built off the engines of others. All of the Valve games were built off the Quake engine, CoDs are all developments of the Quake 3 Arena engine, Batman:AA, Mirror's Edge, Gears of War were all built using the Unreal Engine 3.

Just because you are using someone else's engine does not make you lazy. Engines are hard and expensive to develop - even the engines of decades ago (such as the Quake 3 Arena engine) are estimated to have taken at least 60 person years to develop - this means that a team of twenty people (too many cooks spoil the broth) would take three years to write it from scratch. For almost every game developer, the costs would be prohibitive and useless - why spend millions developing your engines when Epic have a perfectly usable and competitive solution available (remember that the Unreal Engine 3 has been shown to be excellent for almost all genres of action games, from beat-em-ups (Batman) to Mirror's Edge, to TPS' and FPS'.

Finding jobs in the game development industry is tricky. One of the most competitive industries around, you can almost guarantee that game development jobs are hard to find at best, and impossible at worst. If you are well known to be prone to insubordination, you might find it even harder to get a job.

How do you know about the programming techniques? I cannot think of any large games that have been open sourced or had mod tools, those that have are generally seen to be good games. Seeing as you in your whole post seem to have no knowledge of how game development works, I suspect you have no idea about programming techniques or even how to program Hello World applications.

PC game mods are generally seen favourably simply because they can build on what the companies did in the first place. If you have a game that's basically complete but just needs a little tweaking, it's extremely easy for a modder to make the game the best ever. There are some modders who are elite (I have the pleasure of knowing some of them) but the job they do is not as hard as you might think, since they aren't the ones having to build a game from a blank codebase, with no reference code, having to write their own tools and having to deal with the joys of optimizing graphics for every platform. A lot of the difficulty that comes with programming is structuring. How should you develop your program, should you put x in a class of it's own, or give the clients this or that method? Much of the more popular mods I've seen simply consist of small changes or addons. They're excellent mods, and improve the experience massively (I'm not trying to detract from the work put in by the developers), but they don't have the same issues the original developers do.

This is a quotation from a developer I know. I'm not saying any more, but he wrote some very successful mods for cod4, some of the most advanced I've seen, certainly one of the largest. He's now employed in some way by a publisher, and is writing a game that we should hear about in the future, if the experiment is successful. Here's a quotation from him.

Quote:

freaking pain with new engine and blank files though. Took me 4 weeks just to get the main menu done.

There is a very good reason I haven't bought any EA sports games on PC, they're complete garbage. The last NHL games were a joke and so were the FIFA games.

EA sports has done NOTHING but screw over PC users with their games for as long as I can remember, and now in this of 1 of their YEARLY editions of the game they're finally "turning over a new leaf". If you can't see right through that bullshit (oh crap guys, our PC titles aren't selling) then go ahead and keep buying the **** games.

I have an Xbox for my lazy, slouch-on-the-couch days, or when I've got the guys over, the fire in the back yard with some lovely dead animals sweating on it, and plenty of beer flowing.

I have my Wii for basic workout stuff, lighter-hearted games, and when there's a woman within range. Oh, and Zelda/Metroid (yes, I like Zelda and Metroid. Cue flames...)

I have my high-speed network of various rigs dotted around the house for when I want to watch a film from my server, when me and the housemate/missus/buddies fancy blowing the crap out of each other, and when I want to sit back, twitchy fingers at the ready, and go "Ooh, this pretty... LET'S KILL SOMETHING!"

So, the first thing we can see, is that I'm not majorly biased in the casual/hardcore console/PC gamer market here - I like all of them, and everythign has its purpose. Understood? Excellent. Let me begin...

FIFA games are pretty good. Not something I buy every year, due to the uncanny similarities between them (as is expected from a football game...) - I normally wait for the new one to be released, then pick up the older one for a couple of quid pre-owned. Lovely jubbly, job done, I'm a happy man. FIFA 10, I bought not too long after release so I could play with mates. Job's a goodun.

Around that time, I also started taking a look at FIFA 10 on the PC. The graphics/physics engines were more advanced on the Xbox/PS3 versions of the games than the PC. This begged the question "Why?". The answer, according to EA, was that they didn't have the time to implement the graphics in such a way that they could satisfy every hardware setup, and that to properly "do" the PC version would take vast amounts of manpower and lead to 90% of hardware configs being unable to play the game at max settings - by leaving the old engine in place, more people could have a happy experience. So, it was a quality control reason - not a very good one (and one that smacks of "We want more people to buy it!), but come on, this is EA Sports - were you expecting flying pixie dust?

I'm rather looking forward to the updates to the PC version - the people who want it will be getting the chance to choose their own graphics settings, use their preferred control method, and not feel like they've been fobbed off with an inferior product. It's an epiphany, of sorts - a decision by a major gaming company, that benefits the PC community exclusively, and nobody else (albeit they've already had the benefits for a couple of years).

Me, I'll be getting it on the Xbox.

Why, you ask?

Because watching 4 big blokes run around the room and neck 3 pints when Heskey scores is much more fun when I know the most valuable thing that could be damaged cost me £100 second-hand.

NOTE: Here there be dragons. Don't read if you're in a troll-esque mood, or if you're just going to start calling me names. I provide this only to those who wish to explore the graphical differences between PC and console.

On a side-note, I've seen VERY big differences between PC and console graphics. Take a look at videos like this (which, by today's standards, is done on a fairly modest PC, comprising a Q6600 at stock speed and an 8800GTS 640MB), and see how better the PC stands up graphically. There's a Dragon Age: Origins comparison on somewhat more recent hardware (Crossfired 4870s and what I assume to be a Q9550) here and a CoD:MW2 comparison on oldish hardware (E8400 and a 9800GTX) here - considering this is the most consolified of the lot, the difference is still astounding.

All of these videos were played with the games set to 720p (so 1280x720 on the PC). And even on old hardware, the PC sure looks purdy!